From nicholas@uci.edu Sat Aug 25 19:44:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 26 Aug 2001 02:44:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 35469 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2001 02:44:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Aug 2001 02:44:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Aug 2001 02:44:26 -0000 Received: from [128.195.186.34] (dialin53b-22.ppp.uci.edu [128.195.186.162]) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16327 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:44:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: nicholas@e4e.oac.uci.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:48:29 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Retraction &c, Part 2 From: Nick Nicholas cu'u la xorxes. >> .i mi basna ledu'u mi ca melu ga'inai li'u tavlai >> .imu'ibo do ki'u da'i sruma ledu'u mi ctuca tavla; ki'u lenu mi pu lifri lo >> panra be tu'a do >I'm not sure how to interpret that {ki'u le nu}. As it stands >it is a reason for {mi ctuca tavla}, if you add a {kei} it would >be a reason for {do sruma}. It makes most sense as a reason >for {da'i}, but it can't be. My wrong: I probably should have put in a {kei}, but in hindsight I think it should be {mu'i}, and without the {kei}. >> ni'o di'a lenu mi cmima le lojbo cecmu kei mi co'a cmima le >>bangrtlingana cecmu >Is that meant to be {ca le nu mi de'a cmima le lojbo cecmu}? Yup. I'm being experimental too. :-) >> .i roda poi mi pinka ciska zo'u: mi ciska da mu'i lenu mi na >>curmydji lenu >> leka tolpajvrude cu pe'a nalvasxu catra basti leka pajvrude >>I vaguely understand that sentence, but I don't really get >>the {nalvasxu catra}. I'm also not certain whether {tolpajvrude} >>is {to'e pajvrude} or {tolspaji vrude} (I guess the first). Original: "for I shall not tolerate Injustice choking Justice". I am remembering the old rafsi (because when I'd coined the lujvo, we had the old rafsi), and this should have been {tolpairvu'e}, or better, {to'e pairvu'e}. >> .i mi pu pindi gi'e se jibri lo selfu gi'e vecnu loi xirma gi'e se cuntu >> so'i drata jibri >> mu'i lenu mi pleji le se dejni be lemi patfu be'o >> poi loi zercpa cu dejnygau ku'o >> .e lenu mi ji'a cmima le vi cecmu >> ca'o lenu le fuzme se jbera befi la cevni cu se vasru lemi xadni >I don't understand how {e le nu mi ji'a cmima ...} fits with the >rest. It falls in the x2 of pleji, which seems strange, but I >can't place it anywhere else. Forgot the {kei}. mu'i lenu... kei .e lenu... >I don't understand what {le fuzme >se jbera be fi la cevni} is either. That which was loaned (in responsibility)by God (and is contained in my body). i.e., that which God has lent me as a trust. i.e., my soul. **** Damn. I mean, I make it a point of pride to rattle off Lojban from memory, because I'm meant to have learnt it. And I choose never to machine parse it, because if I do, then the grammar is not human-learnable. And so I keep grammar and vocab lookups to a minimum. And it isn't working. This is quite sobering... Nick Nicholas, TLG, UCI, USA. nicholas@uci.edu www.opoudjis.net "Most Byzantine historians felt they knew enough to use the optatives correctly; some of them were right." --- Harry Turtledove.